Regular Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Good

About readyforchange

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    History, Philosophy, Science, Religious studies
  • More About Me
    I would identify as agnostic. I read posts on this website for about 2 years before joining. Learned a wealth of information here.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?

Recent Profile Visitors

160 profile views
  1. Did Jesus Fail to Return?

    SeaJay, another website that may be worth a read is
  2. But is this not God taking on a form other than spirit? When God walks in the garden of Eden in Genesis 3:8, how could there not be some type of physical representation of God present there?
  3. If you can see how Muslims take 16:7-15 out of its original context in order to make it apply to Mohammed instead of to the holy spirit, do you not see how the authors of the gospels could have taken Hebrew bible passages out of their original contexts and made them apply to Messiah and to Jesus? You don't see how a Jew would read the context surrounding Isaiah 7:14 and see Matthew taking the passage completely out of context to have it be about a virgin birth for Jesus? The prophecy in the Isaiah passage is only about the son that would be born as a sign to King Ahaz. There is nothing there related to the Messiah. The double near fulfillment / far fulfillment is a midrash-like re-interpretation of the text to claim that there is another, hidden meaning present. In addition to what LogicalFallacy mentioned in post #956, the next verses, Isaiah 7:15-16, state that the child had to learn how to refuse evil and choose good, and that before the child would know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land that the two kings that Ahaz feared would be deserted. So this means that Jesus, who as God incarnate is omniscient, had to learn how to choose good and refuse evil? Also, if the woman who gave birth to Isaiah's son was a virgin, is this not miraculous birth of a son of God, some 600 years earlier than Jesus? Was Isaiah's son a divine child who was born without sin, like Jesus? If Matthew used the Greek word for virgin in Matthew 1:23 in speaking about the woman prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, do you not claim this for the woman referenced in Isaiah and instead rely on the Hebrew word almah meaning a young woman? In reading some of your earlier responses, I'm not sure if you ever read through Citsonga's posts 537 - 539, but those are other examples of Hebrew bible passages taken out of their original contexts.
  4. But are not Adam and Eve at least your spiritual parents, in the sense that you inherited a sin nature because of their disobedience to God? Or are you saying that because God is your parent, you no longer have the capacity to commit sins?
  5. Sai Baba is another good example. He has many followers, including temples in several American cities -
  6. Stranger, I understand there are Muslims who believe that John 16:7-15 is Jesus speaking about sending Mohammed to the world. In the context of John, I think this is a reference to the holy spirit. But in considering your responses about immediate and later fulfillment of prophecy in relation to Isaiah 7:14, how can you be certain that there was not a hidden message or double-fulfillment for John 16:7-15? 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate[a] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about[b] sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. 12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
  7. Stranger, you mentioned that before the Son took on a body, God was Spirit only. How do you interpret instances where the authors of the Torah use anthropomorphic terms in describing God? For instance, in Genesis 3:8, God "walks" in the garden of Eden. Or in Genesis 32:22-32, God, appearing as a man, "wrestles" with Jacob. In Genesis 32:30, Jacob/Israel calls the location Peniel because he had seen God "face to face".
  8. I'm Terrified

    If not already, maybe you can ask your husband the same choice question but from the perspective of a non-Christian religion, or a lifelong believer in a non-Christian religion. For example, did someone born and raised Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, etc., and consistently surrounded by friends and family of the same faith and worldview, choose his or her belief? Or ask him if he thinks that he can choose to be a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist, and if he says no, ask him why not...
  9. False Prophetic Claims

    Yeah, it seems like a case of stretching the context to make the prophecy still work. I may be missing something there, but I think in a plain reading of the NOG translation, the "His troops" at the beginning of 26:12 is the plural "they" referenced afterwards in verse 12. In order to be consistent with the "his" references in 26:7-11, this has to be Nebuchadnezzar, because he is named in verse 7 and no other individual is named afterwards (as the "he" referenced in verses 7-11). So in the NOG translation, "His troops" in verse 12 refers to Nebuchadnezzar's troops. But in the apologetic explanation from your earlier post (below), it says that this part of the prophecy (verse 12) was fulfilled by Alexander. To make this explanation work (at least with the NOG translation), this has to mean Nebuchadnezzar's troops did the "plunder all your riches and merchandise and break down your walls" part and Alexander the Great's army did the "destroy your lovely homes and dump your stones and timbers and even your dust into the sea" part. I suppose that could be possible, but hard to see that this is what Ezekiel would have meant. But again, this is the NOG, so not sure if any other Bible translations have a similar translation of verse 12. 12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water. Alexander the great filled this part of the prophesy when he used stones from the mainland city to build a causeway out to island Tyre. He then proceeded to break down the walls and destroy the island city.
  10. False Prophetic Claims

    Also, if the subject of Ezekiel 26:12 is Nebuchadnezzar and his troops, there appears to be a contradiction later in Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel proclaims judgement against Egypt, prophesizing in Ezekiel 29:19 that Yahweh will give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar. However, one verse earlier, Ezekiel 29:18 states: "Son of man, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon made his army fight hard against Tyre. Every soldier’s head was worn bald, and every soldier’s shoulder was rubbed raw. Yet, he and his army got no reward for their hard-fought battle against Tyre". (NOG) Here, writing after Nebuchadnezzar's siege against Tyre, Ezekiel stated that he and his army got no reward for their battle against Tyre. However, in Ezekiel 26:12, Ezekiel indicated to Tyre that Nebuchadnezzar and his troops would "loot your riches and take your goods as prizes...". How do the individuals you are debating interpret Ezekiel 29:18? I know there is also considerable debate over whether Nebuchadnezzar ever conquered Egypt after his siege against Tyre.
  11. False Prophetic Claims

    LogicalFallacy, FYI: The Names of God (NOG) translation translates Ezekiel 26:12 as "His troops will loot your riches and take your goods as prizes. They will destroy your walls and tear down your delightful homes. They will throw your stones, wood, and soil into the water." The verse begins with "His troops" and not "They" - as in Nebuchadnezzar's troops.
  12. “Duh!” Scripture of the Week: the Ascension

    Thanks for the link Cousin Ricky - I'll plan to read through it.
  13. “Duh!” Scripture of the Week: the Ascension

    What's interesting is that there is an earlier ascension of Jesus described at the end of Luke, in Luke 24:50-53. This ascension in Luke took place the same day the resurrected Jesus first appears to the disciples in Jerusalem, and the ascension took place in Bethany after Jesus led them there. But the ascension in Acts 1:9-11 took place forty days after Jesus was resurrected and in Jerusalem, after he appeared on earth to the disciples during those forty days (Acts 1:3). It appears that Jesus had two different ascensions to heaven. But there may be ways in which to harmonize the two accounts, or interpretations that these accounts both describe the same ascension. Luke and Acts were supposedly written by the same person. 50 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.[p] 52 And they worshiped him, and[q] returned to Jerusalem with great joy; 53 and they were continually in the temple blessing God. (NRSV)
  14. My 2 cents

    Bibler, as Citsonga said, I also find your statement puzzling. 1 Peter 3:15 states, "but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you" (NRSV) Additionally, why would you be concerned with the potential for being mocked (and how do you know that would happen)? 1 Peter 3:16-17 goes on to state, "yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God’s will, than to suffer for doing evil." (NRSV) As a follower of Christ, should not this be a good opportunity to share your personal experience with us, in defense of the hope in you?
  15. My 2 cents

    If you want to say God/Jesus is omniscinet and always knows, that's fine. But when you say, "You will be known as...", this is not true in all cases, if you are referring to ex-Christians always being known to other living humans "as a person for whom Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough, who did not accept it when provided with the chance to, who "fell away". An ex-Christian can live his or her public life as a Christian and never disclose to anyone else, including family and friends, that he or she is in fact a non-believer. When those ex-Christians die, all who knew them may think that they lived and died as Christian and have no idea otherwise. A pastor giving the eulogy at the funeral may not even know this.